Gaster v. Commonwealth3/27/2003
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County (trial court) that struck the ignition interlock requirement from the suspension notice issued to Jennifer Gaster. We affirm.
On September 25, 2000, Gaster was involved in a motor vehicle crash and was later charged with driving under the influence (DUI) in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3731(a). While this DUI charge was still pending before the trial court, Gaster was arrested on October 19, 2001 and charged with DUI. On March 22, 2002, Gaster was convicted of both DUI charges in the trial court. On April 9, 2002, the Fayette County Clerk of Courts certified to the Bureau, Gaster's conviction for the September 25, 2000 DUI charge. Thereafter, the Bureau sent Gaster a notice dated and mailed April 23, 2002, stating that her operating privilege was being suspended for one year, effective April 2, 2002, pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. §1532(b)(3) as a result of her DUI conviction. On April 15, 2002, the Fayette County Clerk of Courts certified to the Bureau, Gaster's conviction for the October 19, 2001 DUI charge. The Fayette County Clerk of Courts certified to the Bureau Gaster's conviction for the October 19, 2001 DUI offense.
The Bureau, by official notice dated and mailed May 17, 2002, notified Gaster that her operating privilege was being suspended for one year, effective April 2, 2003, pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. §1532(b)(3), as a result of her conviction for the October 19, 2001 DUI offense. The May 17, 2002 suspension notice additionally advised Gaster that, as a condition to the restoration of her operating privilege, she would have to comply with the provisions of Pennsylvania's Ignition Interlock Device Act (Act).
On June 14, 2002, Gaster filed a statutory appeal with the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, in which she averred that she was only disputing the requirement that she comply with the Act. On August 21, 2002, a de novo hearing was conducted before the trial court on Gaster's appeal, during which the Bureau submitted into evidence a packet of certified documents as proof of official records and rested its case. At the hearing, Gaster contended that because both of her DUI offenses were disposed of by the trial court at the same time, they were both considered to be first offenses and therefore she should not be subject to the Act. The trial court agreed that both of Gaster's DUI offenses were "first" convictions for sentencing purposes and that, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §7002(a), the trial court was given the discretion whether or not to invoke the ignition interlock requirement. Additionally, the trial court relied upon this Court's decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), to the extent that since the criminal trial court did not order the ignition interlock, the Bureau, acting on its own authority, may not then impose that requirement upon the licensee.
DOT now brings the present appeal.
On appeal, DOT argues that Gaster's conviction for the October 19, 2001 DUI offense constituted a conviction for a "second or subsequent violation of 75 Pa. C.S. §3731," thereby placing the conviction within the ambit of 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(b), and requiring that the ignition interlock requirement be imposed upon Gaster as a condition to restoring her operating privilege. Additionally, DOT contends that Section 7003 of the Ignition Interlock Act precludes the Bureau from restoring the operating privilege of repeat DUI offenders unless they comply with the Act's requirements, regardless of whether a trial court complied with what DOT avers to be the trial
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|